ClamRussel wrote:Add this to the list of incidents that should be suspended but won't even be reviewed. I really wish the NHL would balance out the seriousness of the injury and the intent to injure. Could Lupul's elbow be any more out and targeting Henrik's head?

Rule 21 - Match Penalties21.1 Match Penalty - A match penalty involves the suspension of a player for the balance of the game and the offender shall be ordered to the dressing room immediately.A match penalty shall be imposed on any player who deliberately attempts to injure or who deliberately injures an opponent in any manner.

If a player took a two handed swing, as hard as he could, towards a players head but missed, instead hitting the glass or his own team mate he could be slapped with a match penalty, if in the eyes of the ref it was an intentional, deliberate attempt to injure. ( well unless his name is Kessel)

But that would be an obvious one. The Lupul elbow was that obvious. I doubt there would be any argument had he made contact and Hank was laid out on the ice. It is the intent that is looked at in a match penalty. But alas, without the contact the NHL has no stomach for handing out match penalties. I'm just glad Hank saw it coming. And I do wish Kadri had been knocked out on that play with blood gushing out of his broken face. Nosy because I dislike Kadri or wish ill towards him, but to have the attention drawn to Lupal's play. It may have stared the right conversation at the NHL.

Personally, I find attempted headshots a far more egregious offence than unintentional headshots. Case in point, Lupul's botched elbow attempt is far worse than Edler's mistimed angle. One is an intent to injure, the other is a hockey play. The NHL would be less of a joke if it put more weight into the intent of the player (sometimes they do, other times they don't) and less weight on the severity of the injury. Injury has to be a factor but right now its way too lopsided.

okcanuck wrote:Art! please scroll up to HW,s post. Its in the rule book.Now, if Buttman would tell his refs to enforce said rules, we would have less head injuries.

It might be in the rulebook, but I doubt they'll ever call that one.

I just think of the times where they ignore the rule book when it's a star doing the nasty stuff. Look at Weber smashing Zetterbergs head into the glass. That is INTENT AND ACTION. No suspension. If they can't even figure out the real shit, how can they ever get to the intended stuff?

I agree with the folks here and Clam probably put it best:

ClamRussel wrote:I find attempted headshots a far more egregious offence than unintentional headshots. Case in point, Lupul's botched elbow attempt is far worse than Edler's mistimed angle. One is an intent to injure, the other is a hockey play.

If you want to get the avoidable/violent headshots, then start punishing what causes them. Lupul's chicken-wing attempted dirty play should've been a one-game suspension. I just think the league is too short-bus to deal with this proactively.

okcanuck wrote:Art! please scroll up to HW,s post. Its in the rule book.Now, if Buttman would tell his refs to enforce said rules, we would have less head injuries.

It might be in the rulebook, but I doubt they'll ever call that one.

I just think of the times where they ignore the rule book when it's a star doing the nasty stuff. Look at Weber smashing Zetterbergs head into the glass. That is INTENT AND ACTION. No suspension. If they can't even figure out the real shit, how can they ever get to the intended stuff?

That one was one of the most blatantly obvious suspensions/non-suspensions that I've ever seen. Head smashed into glass = no problem, all good. I could even understand their thinking if it was against a slug or goon...but Zetterberg is easly as big a star as Weber, maybe more. The NHL has to start factoring hockey plays into this. Duncan Keith against Daniel = no hockey play. Keith against Jeff Carter = no hockey play. Both of those should have been hella long suspensions. If you start throwing the book at players (yes even star players) then they'll start getting with the program. If Keith got 10 for the Daniel play and 15 for the Carter play perhaps he'd begin to use his brain before lashing out. If not, next one is 20.

ClamRussel wrote:I find attempted headshots a far more egregious offence than unintentional headshots. Case in point, Lupul's botched elbow attempt is far worse than Edler's mistimed angle. One is an intent to injure, the other is a hockey play.

If you want to get the avoidable/violent headshots, then start punishing what causes them. Lupul's chicken-wing attempted dirty play should've been a one-game suspension. I just think the league is too short-bus to deal with this proactively.

If they went w/ more than a game then Lupul would get the memo, being a repeat offender and all. Its like those "stop" signs on minor hockey players. Eventually they start to work and players start to think before they act.

Happened a few days ago, looks like Ryan embellished a bit, was part of Kerry Fraser's column on TSN today...

...I see this as an illegal attempt by Dennis Seidenberg to make himself bigger and to initiate contact a split second after Bobby Ryan altered his posture. I do not see it as a deliberate attempt by Seidenberg to injure Bobby Ryan with the use of his elbow.

This was clearly a missed elbowing penalty by the referee. As a result of the apparent injury sustained to the head of Bobby Ryan, a major penalty and automatic game misconduct should have been assessed to Dennis Seidenberg of the Boston Bruins. ...http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/kerry_fraser/?id=436906

Peter King of SI has three part series this week outlining the week he spent with an NFL officiating crew. Some very enlightening comments on the post game review process and grading system for NFL officials. I would assume there is similar for NHL refs.